RE: flush shared_pool and query performance

From: "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:59:31 -0400

Sure, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. As an added confirmation, if
you have 0.01 secs, and then you flush and first execution is 0.3 secs, does
the second execution after the flush go back to 0.01 secs? If so, then the
difference is the hard parse.
-Mark
--
Mark J. Bobak
Senior Database Administrator, System & Product Technologies
ProQuest
789 E. Eisenhower, Parkway, P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346
+1.734.997.4059 or +1.800.521.0600 x 4059
mark.bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.proquest.com
www.csa.com
ProQuest...Start here.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of genegurevich@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:40 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: flush shared_pool and query performance
Hi all:
I am noticing that the same SQL executed before and after 'alter system
flush shared_pool' completes in VASTLY
different time - 0.01s before the command and 0.3s after the command. I
wonder why is that. When I flush the
shared_pool, the library cache is flushed and so my SQL needs to be
reparsed. Is that reasonable for parsing
to take 0.3s?
thank you
Gene Gurevich
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l